Click to launch the photo gallery
Click to launch the photo gallery
For most people, animals and plants, a warming planet is generally a bad thing, bringing dramatic climate shifts and changes in ecosystems. But not everyone will suffer. A few species stand to gain a lot, actually. Like, for example, those poor killer whales trapped in Canada.
Caught by surprise as the mercury fell, a pod of about 12 orcas spent two days bobbing up and down in a truck-sized breathing hole through thick sea ice, with no way out. The whales were way too far inland and north of where they should be this time of year, trolling the waters outside of Inukjuak, Quebec, in Hudson Bay. Dramatically warmer Arctic waters from this summer are one reason why, according to Canadian environmental officials. Climate change has reduced sea ice cover in Hudson Bay, which enables orcas to spend more time there feeding. Then the temperatures shifted and sea ice started to form, boxing the whales in.
The orcas drew worldwide fascination and calls for help, but Canadian environmental officials said they had no available icebreaker to cut a path to the sea. But a changing climate gives and takes. Wind and currents seem to have shifted in the past day, breaking up large chunks of sea ice and freeing the whales, according to various Canadian news reports. See? Some animals will benefit from warmer seas. Polar bears' plight is sad, but there's always a silver lining.
This led us to wonder which other animals could stand to gain from global warming. Click through to the gallery for a few examples.
Which makes one wonder why naturalists would care about global climate change. Do they not believe that evolution will continue to work and that what ever is most fit will still survive? Millions of things have disappeared off the face of this planet making room for those we have now. Under naturalism, why should we care if more disappear to make way for the new?
Depends on whether there are more or less new than old. If only a few species survive the transition then maybe its bad. Naturalists care about climate change since most of them believe it is man made and that any excessive man made change (unnatural change) to an environment is bad. There's a lot of varying opinions on this, you could argue that since man is a type of animal anything we do is natural, our cities are like big nests or beaver dams.
The most fit doesn't always survive, take a rock, paper scissors scenario in bacteria. bacteria A eats bacteria B which eats C who eats A. If A evolves more effectively and kills all of B then C will overpopulate and kill A since bacteria B isn't eating them anymore. You can expand that to a much bigger circle in a real environment. Environments are based on cycles and balance beyond evolutionary fitness when you take out a species it usually has a negative effect, but since most environments are bigger than 3 species one removal won't take the whole thing down.
A lot of people say this imbalance will fix itself. ie bacteria C will overpopulate and kill more A before they kill B off, But no one has stopped us from killing off several species.
Hey wait, screw the orca, what about HUMANS?!
Whales will be lunch when humans are starving.
I'd bet just about every animal can survive a warmer planet easier than they can survive a colder one.
Not when there's more draughts and severe storms. A Shift in either direction is bad. Were having some of the warmest temperatures ever right now and were in an ice age. Just imagine when that ends.
I was looking for Al Gore's name in here somewhere...lol.
Yes we are in an ice age. An "ice age" is defined by the existence of permanent ice sheets somewhere on the planet. Within an ice age, there are: 1)glacial periods, where the ice sheets grow and move south and can sometimes cover the majority of the planet. And then there are: 2)interglacial warming periods... such as we are in now. The scientific consensus is that we are approaching the END of an interglacial period,(headed back into a deep freeze). Conversely, non ice age periods have NO permanent ice sheets ANYwhere on earth. So it can get ALOT warmer. But that's NOT where we are headed. Geologically speaking, any human induced "global warming" is at most a temporary concern.
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
There's at least one other species that would benefit from a warming world: homo sapiens.
Too bad that global warming actually stopped in 1998.
If you think Nicole`s story is incredible..., three weeks ago my sister in-law actually earned $5242 workin a 20 hour week in their apartment and there classmate's mother-in-law`s neighbour has been doing this for 4 months and recieved a check for more than $5242 in there spare time on their computer. applie the instructions at this address... http://www.bit90.com
There's a few deluded comments here. Our current interglaciation period may be approaching a change to advancing glaciation but that was predicted for thousands of years in the future. We are forcing an incredibly fast (geologically speaking) change measured in decades. Likewise past changes from glaciation to completely ice-free took millions of years with plenty of time for evolutionary adaptation. Even on the occasions when there were massive CO2 dumps, like the PETM or End Permian mass extinctions, the super-volcanic eruptions involved took thousands of years. Humanity's output of CO2 is over 100x all the volcanic emissions on the planet combined, a super volcano indeed. Contemplate the effect of 100 eruptions or geysers or fumeroles for every one active today. 100 Yellowstones scattered across the US. 100 Mt St Helens. That's what our power stations and bumper-to-bumper highways are producing.
The big worry is that with the change so rapid, releases of natural carbon stores like methane clathrates from the Arctic permafrost will happen in a few decades instead of being spread over many millenia, causing a runaway temperature rise. Even rats and cockroaches will struggle to adapt to that.
Kiwiiano... I'm right 98% of the time, so who cares about the other 3%?
Go ahead. Try to grow enough food for the world with Global Cooling. We grow much of the country's/world's vegetables by irragating the Southern Calif. desert now. Try growing these vegetables under 2 or 10 feet of snow and see how many of the worlds people die due to starvation.
Global Warming is MUCH perferred to Global Cooling, in my opinion.
With Global Cooling the growing season moves south.
With Global Warming the growing season moves north.
I much prefer the growing season to move north into Montana and Canada. Plus, we can still irrigate the NEW deserts as we are now and make them produce food.
Try doing that under snow.